I read the article. There is no "evidence" that the drawings depict aliens. The images are probably are attempts to depict human beings by a very untalented artist. Also, the colors are awfully vivid given their supposed age. BTW, how was their age determined? Minerals can't be carbon dated, only organic materials having carbon in them.

When I read a scientist saying things like "The findings suggest that humans in prehistoric times may have seen or imagined beings from other planets," because I don't believe prehistoric being had a clue that the earth was a sphere much less that there were other spheres out there with beings on them.

The article notes the find has yet to be thoroughly examined by scientific experts. It's an interesting discovery but I prefer to wait until all the facts are in and have been independently verified.

I read the article. There is no "evidence" that the drawings depict aliens. The images are probably are attempts to depict human beings by a very untalented artist.

The space helmets and UFO could also be a depicting a cultural context that is poorly understood or forgotten.

For instance, 10,000 years from now, someone from a culture unaware of the concept of halos might assume this fourth century drawing depicts Jesus wearing a space helmet. Likewise for the first century statue of Buddha and the Roman image of Apollo.

Well from what I have experienced and what I understand and being an artist myself these rock paintings do appear as primitive depictions of ETs and ufos. I find the artworks to be more in proportional than what the San people/bushmen in South Africa would do if they documented the same thing.

The same sort of thing happened when modern earth people visited primitive cultures who had never seen airplanes before, they believed the modern people to be gods from the sky.

Perhaps they dated them from analysing the paint by taking samples of the paint.

Is it logical to assume aliens would necessarily have inflated heads? Who came up with that physical trait? We only utilize a small percentage of our brain's capacity so it follows that a larger gourd doesn't mean more intelligence necessarily.

We have television shows about idiots looking for sasquatch in the hinterlands of Canada despite no physical evidence to support the possibility. Evidence of extra-terrestrials is also in very short in supply.

I believe this one may end up in the same file category as crop circles.

As you know there is a diversity of life outside of the solar system, from the data collected about extraterrestrials visiting this planet, they do have common trends of large heads, and smallish bodies.

Secondly the amount of data in regards to extraterrestrials very much outweighs the data of sasquatch , which as you say is less specific compared to planet wide collected data of extraterrestrials which tend to be common with the description of big heads and little bodies. The media is much to blame in throwing the topic of extraterrestrials into the supernatural box, as if its done on purpose to discredit anything and everything.

As you know there is a diversity of life outside of the solar system, from the data collected about extraterrestrials visiting this planet...

We don't know that there is ANY life outside of the solar system. It seems likely, but we have no real evidence. Not a shred.

Scientific evidence has several qualities, one of which is persistence. One form of persistence is reproducible results. Another form of persistence is physical evidence that can be examined again and again and by numerous qualified investigators. In other words, where is the alien body? So far, every attempt to show us an alien turns out to be a fraud or lacks any degree of credibility in terms of withstanding reasonable skepticism.

Personal accounts, if they pass basic tests of credibility, only point investigators in a direction. They do not constitute evidence on their own.

So far, placing aliens in the "supernatural box" is a kindness. They belong in the "crackpot box."

I do agree with much what you said, in general and according to mainstream general perspective of no one who has ever experienced anything themselves. Just because there is data uncertainty does not mean that it should be destroyed or discredited, but be best to be placed on shelf until such time more data is discovered.

Your conclusion statement appears more like a personal attack than looking at things in a neutral perspective and not a good data sampling or data gathering technique, making yourself believe that earth is the only planet in the universe that has people on it thus providing more credit to those who believe in deities and spirits, thus concluding that your perception on the topic is extremely primitive no better than a cave man trying to decipher what they may or might have seen,

Just because there is data uncertainty does not mean that it should be destroyed or discredited, but be best to be placed on shelf until such time more data is discovered.

It's also worth mentioning that even if we do currently lack scientific data about life on other planets, that doesn't mean we always will. NASA scientists in the video below suggest we're perhaps a few decades away from making such a discovery. They are speculating of course, but it's noteworthy that these are mainstream scientists, who are generally cautious about making such predictions.

The next generation of telescopes-- like the James Webb-- will be hundreds of times more powerful and capable of analyzing the atmospheres of exoplanets for gases (such as oxygen) that could be produced by living organisms.